Randy's Views

First, here is a little history. The Georgia General Assembly (formed in 1777) is older than the United States Congress (which was created by the United States Constitution in 1789). The 180 Representatives and 56 Senators meet in Atlanta beginning on the second Monday in January for no longer than forty days each year. There is no requirement that the forty days be consecutive, hence the session will likely extend into April. Before it is over, almost everyone will wish that it was limited to forty consecutive days.

The 2008 Session of the Georgia General Assembly promises to be exciting and entertaining. Although Republicans control both chambers in the General Assembly, and the office of the Governor, there are genuine battles brewing amongst the Georgia House of Representatives, the Georgia Senate, and the Governor for political power and control in Georgia. Notwithstanding the passage of time, the sting of the Governor’s vetoes remains fresh in the minds of many Representatives and a few Senators.

While settling simmering political scores remains high on the political entertainment charts, it will be the budget that signals the winner of the political power struggle in Georgia. There are two different components of the budget fight - spending (including the prioritization of spending) and taxes.

As the third fastest growing state, it is not surprising that Georgia’s state government spending has increased steadily since the Republicans gained control. Notwithstanding the increases, Georgia has been able to fund its reserves, pay down its debt, and avoid tax increases. In a world with huge federal deficits, balanced budgets without tax increases are notable and impressive.

Yet, Georgia’s success in collecting money from Georgia taxpayers may have cloaked a real spending problem. After all, big tax revenues often relieve the political pressure necessary to force the tough budget decisions required to limit a growing bureaucratic government funded by excessive government spending.

Apart from the total amount of Georgia’s state government spending, there is the question of where the money gets spent. In 2007, the Georgia Legislature expressed some clear directions on how Georgia’s tax dollars were spent. The governor did not agree. The ultimate authority to make those decisions is now at play.

Taxes fund the spending and Georgia has plenty of taxes. Georgia has an income tax. Georgia has a sales tax. Georgia has a gasoline tax. Georgia has a property tax. Georgia has an ad valorem tax. Basically, there is not much (if anything) that Georgians do that is not taxed.

And, as Georgians earned more money, Georgia has collected more income taxes from higher incomes. As property appreciated, Georgia has collected more property and ad valorem taxes from higher property values and more expensive automobiles. As Georgians have spent more, Georgia has collected more sales taxes. Effectively, and efficiently, Georgia has taxed prosperity and collected more revenue than ever.

Against this backdrop comes the 2008 Georgia General Assembly session. There appears to be a growing consensus that the time has come for meaningful tax reform. The question is, does the type of tax reform dictate an acceptable level of spending or, does the spending dictate the acceptable type of tax reform.

Two different schools of thought have emerged regarding this fundamental issue on tax reform.

One option is to determine how much can Georgia afford to give back to taxpayers, and then figure out a plan to give only that amount back. The other option is to determine what is meaningful tax reform and then adopt a budget that is limited to the revenues that result.

Unfortunately, there is a risk that the competing philosophical differences on the approach to tax reform may stymie meaningful change. After all, there will be institutional resistance (especially from career bureaucrats) to any change that limits or restricts the growth of government spending.

As a result, there is a third option that remains - business as usual under the Gold Dome. Of course, Republicans in Washington, D.C. tried that approach in the years leading up to 2006. The result was election losses that cost the GOP control in both Houses in the United States Congress - not a good option.

So what does all of this mean? Political pundits quizzically posed this question when nothing they predicted (or expected) in the 2008 Presidential race actually happened.

In November 2007, Senator Hillary Clinton was inevitable. After the Iowa caucuses, she was sunk. After New Hampshire, she moved to probable.

Senator John McCain has followed a similar path. Washington, D.C. insiders dubbed him a political “dead man walking.” Now, he is consensus top tier, if not the frontrunner for the Republican nomination.

So what does all of this mean? Amidst all the uncertainty, there are some things that have become clear.

First, while still critically important, money and political machines do not dictate electoral success. It is why talking heads on cable news networks are unreliable indicators of election results; and, political consultants have lost any meaningful ability to reliably predict, much less determine election outcomes. The problem is that money, political machines, and polls are the only barometers that pundits and commentators rely on when trying to project what voters will do. So, they have been wrong - consistently wrong.

Second, neither the media nor pollsters can deliver election victories. This is not to say they did not try. Between CNN and FOX, Senator Obama got everything he could hope for in the pre-New Hampshire primary coverage. Indeed, after the pre-New Hampshire primary election buildup for an easy Senator Obama victory, some voters had to wonder why even have the election. (Undoubtedly, some of Senator Obama’s staffers have to wonder whether the projected double-digit victory allowed too many independent New Hampshire voters to comfortably defect from the Democratic Primary and vote for Senator John McCain in the Republican Primary.)

While the network executives were convinced of a Senator Obama victory, voters were not. It was actually entertaining to watch commentators on live cable television scurry about to explain Senator Obama’s success while streaming election results reflected that something completely different was happening. 2008 has confirmed the old adage that polls do not vote, people do.

Third, politics in the internet/cable news era moves fast. In Iowa, Governor Mike Huckabee skyrocketed in the blink of an eye from political obscurity to first place in the most anticipated election contest in America. In New Hampshire, Senator Barack Obama saw a projected ten point victory dissolve overnight (literally overnight) into a three point loss.

Voters tune in late; they consider the choices; they decide; and then, they move on.

In that way, some would argue that the 2008 Presidential nomination coverage truly has become a political reality show. Voters are looking for something or someone that they can identify with. There is no better illustration than Senator Hillary Clinton’s campaign during the 48 hours leading up to the New Hampshire Democratic Primary.

As the 48 hours begins, the deck is decidedly stacked against her - but she does not give up. In the course of one of the last debates (just as New Hampshire tunes in), she acknowledges that it “hurt” that folks did not find her as popular as Senator Obama, and for those watching, it was clear that it did hurt. After nonstop campaigning at a physically exhausting pace, she “teared up” (using the words of commentators) in describing how hard it had been. Senator Edwards (in what has to be one of worst political miscalculations of the election cycle), then piled on by questioning her fitness to serve as Commander in Chief if she thought the election was tough. Senator Clinton’s 48 hours culminated with a victory speech in New Hampshire noting that she had found her voice.

For many women in America, the sequence struck a resonating chord. After all, it has been their journey in life. It has not been easy. They have been hurt. They have “teared up” in the face of adversity, but they were not broken. Even as some men cited such emotion as a sign of weakness undermining their ability to lead, they persevered. Through this journey, a quiet confident resolve took root permitting them to find their voice. In New Hampshire, and throughout America that voice is Hillary Clinton in 2008.

Now, a word from our sponsor.

No one should kid themselves, President Bill Clinton is that good.

Two genuine and real life events - Senator Hillary Clinton’s human moment and the struggle of modern American women to exist and succeed were woven together artfully and effectively to unite and move many women into action in New Hampshire, and maybe in America. Republicans do not have anyone nearly that good.

Speaker Glenn Richardson has gaveled the Georgia House of Representatives to order and the 2008 General Assembly is officially in session. As Representatives and Senators gather under the Gold Dome, there will be fiery speeches, flowery political rhetoric, and some serious power brokering. Amidst all of the pomp and circumstance, there are some things that Georgia Legislators could do that will materially improve the lives of Georgians. Here are a few.

Ban smoking in automobiles that have children as passengers. It is against the law in Georgia to smoke in a public building because the risk to non-smokers of second hand smoke is too great. It is against the law in Georgia to operate a vehicle transporting a child unless the child is in a car seat because the risk to the child is too great. So what is so complicated about banning smoking in cars with kids? There is no rational explanation. Children locked in a child restraint in a car with a smoking parent are harmed every time they get in the car, not just when there is an accident. Public officials focused on the health of Georgia’s children twenty years from now (as opposed to the whims of the smokers in the next election) would stop that harm now.

Ban teenagers from talking or texting on mobile phones while driving. Every year, there are reports of serious automobile accidents involving teenage drivers. Georgia has taken some good steps toward addressing this problem. There are limits on passengers. There are significant penalties for traffic violations. Now, the next step should be taken. The fact is that talking, and texting, let alone texting, on a mobile phone is a serious distraction for experienced drivers. For inexperienced drivers, it can be deadly. No one questions the need for a mobile phone in emergency situations so exceptions may be necessary. But casual conversation while speeding around I-285 is just too risky for teenage drivers. Why wait for the next horrible accident? This is a problem that can be fixed in 2008.

Eliminate parole for criminals who mutilate bodies as part of their crime. In the last few years, there has been a steady pattern of criminals who go beyond violent murder. In addition, they burn, decapitate and dismember bodies after their crime. In some situations, it is part of a calculated plan to avoid detection, prosecution, and punishment. In others, it is simply the product of a sick mind. In either situation, it should result in the automatic forfeiture of any right to parole. For calculating criminals, it is something for them to consider. For those with a sick mind, it is a method to keep them off the streets. Continuing to treat such heinous behavior as just another crime should not be an option. Call it “Meredith’s Law” (after Meredith Emerson, the slain and decapitated victim of Gary Hilton).

Terminate senior judges from presiding over death penalty cases. The Brian Nichols case proves that the current system for defending criminals in death penalty cases is broken. Brian Nichols murdered Judge Rowland Barnes, court reporter Julie Ann Brandau, and Fulton Deputy Sheriff Hoyt Teasley and federal agent David Wilhelm on March 11, 2005. In March, it will be three years since their murders. Senior Judge Hilton Fuller has indefinitely postponed Brian Nichols’ trial until even more (taxpayer) money is found to pay Brian Nichols’ lawyers. There is no end in sight to the mounting legal bills. After all, Brian Nichols’ lawyers have every incentive to delay trial and spend more money, hoping that prosecutors (and taxpayers) eventually give up. Unfortunately, many believe that the senior judge system facilitates that strategy. They argue that senior judges have every financial incentive to continue the case because they are paid based on their time. They have no countervailing accountability because they never face the voters (like every Superior Court Judge in Georgia). No good reason exists why the Brian Nichols case, like most other death penalty cases, should not be heard by a sitting Superior Court Judge. The Georgia legislature has the option to force that change. The question is whether they will do it.

Pay the judges who are doing their job. There is now consensus that Georgia judges are seriously underpaid. These are women and men who are in fact doing their job. Without meaningful increases in judicial pay, Georgians cannot expect this to continue. There does come a point in time when the gap in pay is simply too great to expect talented lawyers to jeopardize their future, and their families’ future to serve the people of Georgia. As that happens, justice suffers. The time to act on this problem is now.